United States Department of State (Washington, DC)
5 September 2008
(Page 3 of 4)
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Well, I’ve learned from experience that these are all difficult problems that may on the surface look comparable to one another, but are frequently not. I do believe there is one basis of comparability, if you will. We would like to show that it is possible to fix these problems and to do so in a manner that is responsive to the interests of the American citizens, that is protective of our national security, and that advances our other interests that are out there. In the case of Libya, I think we are managing to do that. Our diplomacy has been very careful, but it’s been very serious over a number of years, especially throughout this Administration, but also in the 1990s. And it’s paid off.
Now, there is a – there is still a settlement to be done under this agreement that we have. The agreement frames it, makes very clear what each side has to do. But the United States is not going to do any of those steps to implement this agreement until we are satisfied that the funds are there to address our – the issues of our claimants. So that’s where we are.
Now, what model other – how other countries might see that is one model – one view of the model. And look, it’s a reality that there are some states out there that, notwithstanding the pressures being put upon them, the offer of a more reasonable path forward, are choosing to defy the interests of the international community on issues like terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. I mean, the case in point is, I think, Iran, but there are others, too. And it’s very useful to be able to say, look, if you made a different choice, there is a path forward here, you can get out of this box if you behave responsibly.
The other part of your question is: How do you translate this kind of an agreement into other situations? And there, that’s a little bit more difficult, because I think those depend on the cases involved. I mean, in the Libyan case, there was a bewildering array of these suits and claims and so it was very complex in how to address it. And I wouldn’t want to foreshadow that as the ideal model for others. But there’s no question that some elements of that might be useful in other cases. While we were looking at this negotiation with Libya, one of things we did do is go back and look at these past examples and see if they offered us any clue or any ideas on how to deal with these subjects. And fortunately, we have an excellent team of lawyers here who are paid lowly government salaries for doing superb work on this stuff. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Do you think it could – sorry, can I just follow up? Do you think it could be seen by the Palestinian Authority as – for example, as a way forward on the cases that are pending against them?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: I think what they’re exploring now is direct contacts to try and resolve those cases. I wouldn’t want to prejudice that discussion by answering your question directly.
QUESTION: Sylvie Lanteaume from AFP. You said that it’s a diplomatic success. But why – why was it so long to come? Why it took seven years after Qadhafi’s decision to renounce its WMDs? Is it now that – is it now that you need to claim a success because it’s the end of the Administration, so you have to push --
QUESTION: Yes.
(Laughter.)
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Well, Matt’s cynicism is breathtaking. He – the Libyan leadership decided five years ago, not seven years ago, that --
QUESTION: I’m sorry.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: -- they wanted to be out of the WMD business. It took it quite a long time to reconcile itself that it should be out of the terrorism business, too. In my business, I’m prone to trust people, but I also demand to verify things. Sometimes verification takes a while. These negotiations are very complex, Sylvie. We started this one at the beginning of this year when Libya came to us with a suggestion for a comprehensive settlement. But it took six months to do. And it’s because they took it very seriously and so did we. And – I mean, the agreement that is there shows that, I think.
Would I like it all to have gone faster? Certainly. But I prefer that it be there to be very clear and well grounded, and that we not make any mistakes.
QUESTION: But you said yourself that Europe is well ahead.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Well, they’re well ahead in their relationships, yes.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm. So they scored the successes earlier than the U.S?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Well, I would say they could not have scored their successes were it not for us. But yes, that they should have gotten a little advance credit on it. It’s maybe more their way than ours, but so be it.
QUESTION: My name is (inaudible) Italian News Agency, ANSA. There was a recent agreement between Libya and Italy. Was it helpful for you or not?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: I’m not briefed on this agreement yet. I haven’t spoken to my Italian colleagues about it. One of the Libyans with whom we were working was deeply involved in this issue between Libya and Italy. I think that as Libya has reemerged into the international community, it has enabled progress for a number of countries on a number of fronts. I mean, broadly speaking, I think this is a good thing.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: One – Jay Solomon from The Wall Street Journal. One question I’m still not totally clear of on the mechanism. I know the Libyans have made a big deal about the 40 victims they say of the ’86 bombing. Is there an element of – in this agreement that allows for them to be compensated? I’ve read – how exactly does that work? Who’s funding that? Is that clear?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Well, the agreement is a claims settlement agreement. There are claims against the United States in Libyan courts by Libyan citizens who allege that they were harmed by the U.S. military retaliation for the La Belle disco bombing. And there are, as you know, a whole variety of cases in the U.S. courts against Libya. So the agreement envisions that once the agreed level of funding is reached, that each side will take care of its own victims and these claims will then be extinguished.
It doesn’t go into effect, however, until the agreed funding is reached. So it is in that sense symmetrical, yes. And we have an interest in that these cases against the United States in Libyan courts would go away.
QUESTION: You didn’t answer who’s funding it.
QUESTION: How much?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Well, the fund, as I – when – you weren’t here in Jay, when we did the readout after the signature of the agreement. But the fund is available there for any potential contributor --
QUESTION: Including you.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Including you, Jay, a Wall Street journalist, a financial powerhouse, you know. Who knows? It might be able to muster something to contribute.
QUESTION: How much –
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: It’s voluntary. The United States is not pressuring anybody to participate, including any American companies. But if folks want to donate, they’re welcome to do so.
QUESTION: And is it for sure that Condi’s meeting with Qadhafi? Is that set or can you say?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Well, the Secretary of State will be going to each of these countries and Secretary Rice will be meeting with the leadership in each one of them.
QUESTION: Sean confirmed it today (inaudible).
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Oh, he did?
MR. WOOD: Yeah, he did.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WELCH: Okay. Charlie.
Sean, confirmed it. Sorry, Jay. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: But he didn’t say where. (Laughter.)
Be the first to Write a Comment!
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
